Despite having regained positions of true influence in last autumn's mid-term elections, all is not wine and rose in the Democratic Party rank and file. Disillusionment is setting in sooner than one would have thought possible. The problem, which has suddenly become a Democratic Party problem, as well as a Republican one, is of course the war in Iraq.
Patience is wearing very thin with the lack of concrete steps by the new majority to rein in the Bush administration's excesses, and ending the US occupation of Iraq.
Now, this comes as little surprise, indeed was to be expected, as I did following the elections last year, when Marine veteran and purveyor of military-industrial pork turned anti-war leader, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, lost in his bid for the position of majority leader of the House of Representatives, to the staunch defender of the status quo, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
On 16 November 2006, I wrote:
The point is, the Democratic Party majority in Congress could end the war in Iraq at any time they chose to do so after the turn of the year, by simply cutting off the funding for it, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) recently suggested. But, that might be construed as being soft on terror, weak on defense, cutting and running, so of course they won't.
Chances are that the Democratic victory in the mid-term elections won't change the timing of the American pull-out of Iraq by as much as one hour. The troops will leave when their presence there becomes untenable, mainly for economic reasons, and not one second before.
The war in Iraq will drag on. Further conflicts and interventions will be deemed necessary, some of them even justifiably so. Deficits and debts will grow, undermining the economic base, which supports the structure of power. And history will, by and large, stay its course.
One can gauge the temperature of the discontent by sampling the tenor of the comments at the premier online venue for activist Democrats, Daily Kos, and in particular in the series of stories on the subject by one influential member of the community, formerly know as a strong proponent of party discipline.
The speculation on the reasons for the seeming inactivity of the Democratic majority in ending the war, ranges from fear of being tarred as weak on terror and national defence, to sheer feeble-mindedness, to being in the pocket of lobbyists with a financial interest in the continuation of the war, and simply being secretly pro-war themselves.
All of the above are probably true for a number of representatives. But there is another, almost baffling reason, which might explain the conundrum, the inertia of the established narrative.
Anyone who's read a bit of history will have come across instances where things were falling apart, in a manner that should have been obvious for the people in a position to make the decisions, even without the advantage of hindsight. Nations, parliaments, governments and leaders should have been, and in some cases obviously were, aware that the course of action they were set upon was headed towards disaster. Yet they were unable to change course.
The weight of tradition, popular myths, cherished illusions and the dynamics of events, is some times too great a mass to shift, irrespective of who is in the position to make the decisions.
Talking one on one with politicians on such a matter can be an enlightening, if at the same time frustrating, experience. Confronted with their support for some obviously wrongheaded policy, they will often readily admit to not personally thinking it a wise course of action. But when pressed on why they would then support it, or at least not oppose it, they grow flustered. And you can feel, as they're casting about for justifications, that most of them just don't know. They're like victims of hypnotic suggestion being asked why they just pranced about on a stage impersonating a chicken. They simply have no idea, but try to come up with one so hard, you can see their muscles knot and beads of sweat cover their brow. They're not bought and paid for, they're not plain dumb, they don't have evil intentions. They simply don't really know why they act as they do.
And this goes beyond mere peer pressure, or media framing. It's as if the established narrative has permeated the walls. You could probably take every member of the cabinet, from the president on downwards, every member of the Senate and House of Representatives out to the back of the Capitol, have them shot, and replace them with randomly chosen people off the street. And it still wouldn't make a lick of difference to the course of the ship of state.
It is why, some times, things have to break down completely, even catastrophically, before change can win through.